PaulS Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 Brian, What do you mean by possibly entering Heaven maimed? Could you describe what you believe Heaven to be/entail? I still don't quite understand just how you understand a soul after death rejecting God. To you, is this a conscious decision on the part of the person to continue to reject God and live...well, how? Cheers Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brianmhager Posted April 29, 2012 Author Share Posted April 29, 2012 I still don't quite understand just how you understand a soul after death rejecting God. To you, is this a conscious decision on the part of the person to continue to reject God and live...well, how? The greek word "Apocalypse" means literally, "to pull aside the veil." In this life, we live by faith, not by sight. The longer I live, the more I am aware of daily acceptance or rejection of God's coming to me in each present moment. Yet, what I accept or reject here is without the benefit of standing before God as s/he is. When I finally die and enter into the Lord's presence I will see, fully, what it is I have rejected or accepted in this life. My hunch, and I am really only speculating here, is that if I fully rejected the God of my understanding here, I will see in totality, the subject of what I rejected. I don't know, but my thoughts are that it will be more difficult to embrace the truth of God then. All of this, for me, was a way to reconcile what I was taught since my childhood with the growing awareness of who God really is as I grew and matured in faith. Could I be totally wrong about all of this? Perhaps. Yet, it is the understanding that I possess today. How that may change tomorrow? I haven't got a clue. As an example, I have left the Catholic Church because the direction of that institution no longer paralleled my faith trajectory, but I know I must remain open to someday going back. Why? How? That is something only God can answer for me. Much of what I believe today is the result of God's light illuminating my path and inviting me to Love more deeply. S/he continues to apply a healing salve to my wounded soul. Therefore I am being saved/salved. It doesn't give me a truth or philosphy that is better than anyone else's. I simply share what I see on my journey and offer it because as a human person I am seeking to find my own way; my own voice in this world. Peace, Brian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 Thanks, Brian. It's an interesting thought. I'm not arguing with what you say, I'm just interested in how you see things. I've read/heard similiar to what you are saying about rejecting God after death and have always wondered who would ever do that. I would have thought, if anything, that anyone who was to die and be in God's presence looking back on what they rejected, they would then be welcoming God with open arms, rather than continuing to reject him/her/it. It does make me question though what the relevance may be of rejecting the God of your understanding. What would your understanding have to do with it - either you're rejecting God or your not aren't you? I can't see how one's understanding of God would come into play, particularly if that understanding of God isn't the correct one. Cheers Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NORM Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 When I finally die and enter into the Lord's presence I will see, fully, what it is I have rejected or accepted in this life. My hunch, and I am really only speculating here, is that if I fully rejected the God of my understanding here, I will see in totality, the subject of what I rejected. I don't know, but my thoughts are that it will be more difficult to embrace the truth of God then. This is wild. I had just finished reading some translations of the Book of the Dead in preparation for something I am writing. Taking a break from my writing, I perused this thread and came upon the above statement. Consider this from the Egyptian ceremony of expiation in the court of the Goddesses of what is Right, commonly called the "weighing of the heart" because the hieroglyphics from this section depict a man (represented by the single "N") having his heart weighed before Osiris. Address at arrival at the broad hall of the Two Goddesses of What is Right,shielding N from all forbidden things that he has done, and seeing the faces of the gods. Words spoken by N: Hail great god, lord of the place of the Two Goddesses of What is Right. I have come before you so that you may bring me to see your perfection. I know you, I know your name, I know the name of these 42 gods who are with you in this broad court of the Two Goddesses of What is Right, who live on the henchmen of evil, and eat of their blood on that day of calculating characters in the presence of Wennefer. See, your name is He of the two Daughters, he of the two Chants, lord of the Two Goddesses of What is Right, See, I am come before you, I have brought What is Right to you, I have removed What is Wrong for you. I have not impoverished the divine herd (people); I have committed no crime in place of What is Right; I have not known (explored) nothingness; I have not done any evil... - Book of the Dead, Chapter 125A The petitioner goes on to declare that he hasn't committed a lengthy series of "sins." I think there is such similarity because ALL religion is man-made. In our imaginings of perceived interactions between men and our gods, we are not much different from the "ancients." NORM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brianmhager Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 I would have thought, if anything, that anyone who was to die and be in God's presence looking back on what they rejected, they would then be welcoming God with open arms, rather than continuing to reject him/her/it. What is key for me about the rejection is the idea pushed by many today who portray a particular image or conept of God as the "Condemning Judge." They run around telling people that "they'd better be careful or God will send them to Hell!" Really? Is God really doing the judgment or are they? And if their veiw of God is "not entirely" correct (I use that term loosely), does it resemble them and if their view of God does resemble their beliefs, preferences, values, would they recognize the God of Love when they finally stand before Him/Her/It? It does make me question though what the relevance may be of rejecting the God of your understanding. What would your understanding have to do with it - either you're rejecting God or your not aren't you? I can't see how one's understanding of God would come into play, particularly if that understanding of God isn't the correct one. I don't think God particularly cares. Unconditional Love doesn't keep track of wrongs or rights, it only seeks to give itself away. However, if someone cannot accept Unconditional Love - especially for those they consider WRONG - and rather cling to their own "self image, self-created-image" of God would they find it in themselves to then embrace God and the people they spent their lives condemning? I can't really answer that. I only consider that I try to allow God to show me who S/He is in and through the lives of the most wounded, broken, and marginalized of our society. Again, I won't lay the idea of what a person's disposition in the afterlife will be at the feet of God. I consider it a "personal choice." Just as I believe that the methaphor of Adam and Eve (I don't consider it a literal history) was that in the context of the story, they turned their backs on God and Left the Garden. Why? I think it has to do with the choice of Trees they ate from. These fictional characters demonstrate how we can choose either to "know it all," or accept Life - whatever that may be. Does that help you understand my view any more? Peace, Brian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 I think there is such similarity because ALL religion is man-made. Religion is the institution for dealing with religious thought that some really smart people who specialize in these matters think is predisposed in our genes (Boyer, Barret, Atran, Haidt are some that I am aware of). So, it would be "man-made" in the same sense that the nuclear family, or language, is man-made. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NORM Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 So, it would be "man-made" in the same sense that the nuclear family, or language, is man-made. Sure, but unlike a god, it isn't necessary to sacrifice humans, animals, dignity and common sense to appease. NORM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Sure, but unlike a god, it isn't necessary to sacrifice humans, animals, dignity and common sense to appease. Norm, I know you are smarter than this response suggests. Dutch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Sure, but unlike a god, it isn't necessary to sacrifice humans, animals, dignity and common sense to appease. Norm, religion does not necessarily entail sacrifice or appeasement. However, as Haidt shows (in The Righteous Mind), sacrifice does serve a social function in helping to bond a group whether secular (like boot camp, fraternity/sorority initiations, etc.) or religious. If the absence of religion led to some Utopian world, you might have a point. But, this was tried by the USSR, Red China and Cambodia and the result was no better and, in a number of ways, worse. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 A few comments, if I may. To be clear, biological predispostions are not ususally considered to be deterministic. The term indicates a tendency in the population that, at some time, might have made a difference in the survival rate of the species. The issue becomes rather difficult when we consider that fact the we appear to be social, that is we need others to survive. Predispositions do seem to exist, they are measureable. Here's the catch. Biological predispositions are "silent". That is, we find ourselves moving to the dance of biology without a concrete verbal accounting. In my mind, God wrote the Original Symphony and we sometimes alter the beat, the crescendos, and change instruments. But the Symphony is not lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yvonne Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 FWIW, I don't believe in heaven/hell or any variation thereof. Instead, I think our spirits or souls or what have you return to the Source (which I choose to name God). Because I cannot believe in total anniliation, we must, in some way retain some sort of self-awareness. If we lived our lives oblivious to the suffering ot others, if we chose NOT to love, or made "evil" (for lack of a better word) choices, I would think that we would be pretty darn uncomfortable exisiting in something that is defined by humans as "perfect love". As an inadequote example, most of us have done something we are not proud of at some point in our lives. What if that become known to everyone? The word "uncomfortable" doesn't begin to express how I would feel. Whether that makes sense or not is not the point, however. My point is, I cannot, will not, believe in a God that condemns, not give Jesus' messages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hornet Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Hell is supposed to be a place of punishment for those who deserve it. I don't believe that God gets His jollies by sending people to hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 This often gets emotional, which is a much a part of our nature as anything else. The notion of condemnation has biological roots and, I suspect, early humans projected this human tendency onto God. Later thinkers found this attribution innapropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brianmhager Posted May 1, 2012 Author Share Posted May 1, 2012 Hell is supposed to be a place of punishment for those who deserve it. I don't believe that God gets His jollies by sending people to hell. So, Hornet, what is your view of Heaven, in addition to Hell, & Free Choice (or Free Will)? Brian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 I think 'free will" is misunderstood in relation to biology. My biological predisposition often leaves me in a state of conflict. Do I move towards cooperation or towards competition to achieve my goals? But then, we could dispose of the "free will problem" and target the conative aspect of our life as developing humans. I'm sure about this, but it might be more productive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 My biological predisposition often leaves me in a state of conflict. Do I move towards cooperation or towards competition to achieve my goals? Haidt says we are 90% chimps ("competition to achieve my goals") and 10% bees ("move toward cooperation"). We are both individualistic and we are social. We have the two natures and that is a source of many of our inner conflicts. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Haidt says we are 90% chimps ("competition to achieve my goals") and 10% bees ("move toward cooperation"). We are both individualistic and we are social. We have the two natures and that is a source of many of our inner conflicts. George Yes, but how does the timeline of evolution play out when we can make a conscious distinction between cooperation and competitiion? And, how do progressives honor both? Or, do progressives honor both? I do not know. Myron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Yes, but how does the timeline of evolution play out when we can make a conscious distinction between cooperation and competitiion? And, how do progressives honor both? Or, do progressives honor both? I do not know. It is all the product of evolution. He argues the social side got really turned on when we became agriculturalists. Do we honor both? We have no choice, we are humans. That is who we are. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 It is all the product of evolution. He argues the social side got really turned on when we became agriculturalists. Do we honor both? We have no choice, we are humans. That is who we are. George Yes, indeed. And that supports my thesis that Haidt is Jungian in his outlook. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hornet Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 So, Hornet, what is your view of Heaven, in addition to Hell, & Free Choice (or Free Will)? Brian Heaven is a real place and believers in Jesus will spend an eternity in heaven. I think that free choice or free will is the ability to act according to one's desires. Free choice or free will defined in this way is compatible with determinism. This notion of free choice doesn't need the agent to be able to do otherwise. If I perform action X and I had the genuine desire to do it, then I have free will even if I could not have done otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NORM Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Norm, I know you are smarter than this response suggests. Dutch What about my comment seems stupid to you? NORM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NORM Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Norm, religion does not necessarily entail sacrifice or appeasement. Ones that have a place called Hell for eternal torment do. Many, if not most, religions require some sort of self-sacrifice or abandonment of natural human activity (usually regarding sex or pleasure). What religion are you aware of that doesn't require some sort of appeasement to the founding god / gods? If the absence of religion led to some Utopian world, you might have a point. But, this was tried by the USSR, Red China and Cambodia and the result was no better and, in a number of ways, worse. I don't recall advocating a Utopian society. I know that that is just folly. However, I don't believe that the absence of religion necessarily equates to a situation like the USSR, China or Cambodia. There are plenty of small, human settlements in the Amazon rain forest who have no religious beliefs whatsoever and manage to not oppress everyone. The examples theists tend to pull out of the hat had plenty of bad religious karma they were reacting to. I discount those examples. I think that as we move forward in time, a gradual secular society built on social constructions of cooperation, compromise and negotiation will replace most religious institutions. Yeah, it won't be perfect. NORM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hhanover Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Free will just doesn't work out for me. It looks like causal determinism is the real deal, but it is good for me to act as if I have free will. In the early Christian church the doctrine of apokatastasis was reasonably widely accepted which meant everyone gets to Heaven. Origen was a proponent of the doctrine, but pretty soon, around Augustine, I think, it became a heresy. Who needs priests if everyone is going to Heaven anyway? If I was Augustine, a bishop, I would sure try to make sure I had a job too. Here's the deal: we are told that God set for God's self the task of the saving of the world. God is either up to the task or not much of a God. I'm going to have to go with God being equal to the job. Bottom line: Yes on Heaven, yes on everyone gets there. Relax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brianmhager Posted May 2, 2012 Author Share Posted May 2, 2012 Heaven is a real place... How can Heaven be a place? Place suggests finite physicallity. My understanding of what may come after this is that it is eternal - without end or limitation of any kind. Peace, Brian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 I think that as we move forward in time, a gradual secular society built on social constructions of cooperation, compromise and negotiation will replace most religious institutions. It seems that you would like to see the demise of religion. How come? Conversely, what would lead you the think that a secular society would be cooperative and compromising? George 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.